Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A STUDY OF SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL
WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON HABITAT
REQUIREMENTS AND BRUSH CONTROL
by
JOHN ELLIS THARP, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
RANGE SCIENCE
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
I MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Accepted
May, 1971
Ac
T3 [97{ No.S3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude to Dr. Donald A. Klebenow for his expenditure
of time and guidance. I express my appreciation for helpful com-
ments by Dr. Bill E. Dahl and Dr. Robert L. Packard.
I am indebted to Gene W. Darr, Kenneth R. Kattner, and
Wayne Robertson for their assistance in the field work. Robert
E. Wadley aided in writing the computer program. Sincere
appreciation goes to the Renderbrook-Spade Ranch for providing
the research area.
. . 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LIST OF FIGURES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I. INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
II. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH . . . . . . . . III. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .
Study Area . • • • • . . • • • • • . . . . • •
Experimental Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. RESULTS . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Bob\vhite Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . Scaled Quail Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . Brush Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bottomland Habitats . . . . . . . Deep Hardland Habitats . . .
V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brush Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bottomland Habitats . • • • • • . . Deep Hardland Habitats
Management Implications
VI. SUMMARY . • . . • • • • • •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• • • • • • • • • •
LITERATURE CITED • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Page
iv
v
1
2
5
5
8
10
10
15
22
22
27
29
29
30
30
33
34
36
38
40
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Bobwhite Quail Breeding Populations, Rende rbrook-
Spade Ranch, 1970 • . . . . . • . . • . . . • • • . 10
2. Bobwhite Quail Brood Populations, Rende rbrook-Spade
Ranch, 1970 • . . • • • . • • . • . • . • . • . • 11
3. Bobwhite Quail Covey Populations, Rende rbrook-Spade
Ranch, 1970 • . . . • . . • . . . . • • . . • • • 12
4. Independent Variables with Corresponding R2 Values
for Bobwhite Quail in the Order of Deletion . . . . . . 13
5. Actual and Computed Y Values for Bobwhite Quail on
Renderbrook-Snade Ranch, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . 16 ....
6. Scaled Quail Breeding Populations, Renderbrook-Spade
Ranch, 1970 . • . • . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . 17
7. Scaled Quail Brood Populations, Renderbrook-Spade
Ranch, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Scaled Quail Covey Populations, Renderbrook-Spade
\
9.
1 o.
11.
Ranch, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Independent Variables with Corresponding R2 Values
for Scaled Quail in the 0 rde r of Deletion . . . . .
Actual and Calculated Y Values for Scaled Quail on
Renderbrook-Spade Ranch, 1970 ........ .
Scaled and Bobwhite Quail Populations on Controlled
Bottomland and Deep Hardland Habitats, and on an
Uncontrolled Bottomland Habitat, Renderbrook
Spade Ranch, 1970 . . • . . . . • . . . . . . .
iv
• • 20
. . 23
. . 25
•
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
Bottomland habitats controlled and uncontrolled: a) Uncontrolled bottomland habitat, b) Bottomland habitat sprayed in June, 1970, c) Bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968, d) Chained bottom-land habitat . . . . . • . . . . • • . • . • .
Illustration of deep hardland habitat: a) Habitat prior to spraying in June, 1970, b) Habitat aerial sprayed in 1968 .....••...•.
v
Page
. . . 24
• • • 28
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Noxious brush is one of the maJOr range problems in Texas
(Rechenthin, 1964). There are 88.5 million acres of brush lands
(82% of Texas) and extensive brush control programs have been re
cently undertaken to alleviate this problem. Few studies have been
made relating brush control to wildlife. It is important that quail
ecology and brush management be considered together because in a
few years proceeds from hunting of quail coupled with other income
from wildlife use may be equal to or greater than income from live
stock (Teer and Forrest, 1968).
Few reports define exactly when quail habitat becomes immedi
ately untenable because of too little or too much cover (Jackson, 1969).
Therefore, study was initiated in May of 1969 and continued through
August of 1970.
The primary objectives of this study were to determine: 1)
habitat preferences for scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) and bobwhite
quail (Colinus virginianus) on the Texas Rolling Plains, and; 2) effects
of brush control on bobwhite and scaled quail.
1
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Scaled quail are distributed over the arid and semiarid low
lands of western Texas. They are well adapted to the Rolling Plains
of west Texas (Wallmo, 1957) whereas the same area appears to be
marginal habitat for bobwhite quail. Everette { 1952) reported bob
white quail did not thrive in the arid Southwest except when there is
adequate moisture during the breeding season. The western boundary
of bobwhites seemingly depends on variations in rainfall, but normally
their western limit is in the Rolling Plains in Texas. Schemnitz
( 1961) concluded that bobwhite quail, unlike scaled quail, were not
tolerant of dry hot weather.
Schemnitz (1961, 1964) suggested there were no major dif
ferences in the foods eaten by scaled quail and bobwhite quail in
western Oklahoma despite the variation of habitat types occupied by
the two species. The main dissimilarity in diet for the two species
of quail was the variety of foods eaten expressed in terms of average
number of plant species per crop. Eleven of the twenty most
2
•
•
3
prominent foods (95. Zo/o by volume) eaten by bobwhite quail were also
among the most prominent foods of scaled quail (73. So/o of their diet).
Cover is equally important as food to quail according to Jack
son (1969). It seems that quail adjust to cover deficiencies more
readily than they do to food scar city. Quail need the following types
of cover: overhead screening for concealment while feeding and moving;
tangled woody thickets or dense patches of coarse weeds and grasses
which easily can be reached when quick escape from an enemy is es
sential; cover for resting, dusting, and the midday inactive period;
and nesting and roosting cover.
Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) and sand shinnery oak (Quercus
havardii) provide resting and screening cover needed for feeding and
movement. Moderately grazed vegetation interspersed with islands of
taller weeds and grasses in the shelter of mesquite shrubs or by sand
shinnery oak motts lend additional types of cover. Screening cover
for concealment while feeding and moving is at its best in years when
rainfall and plant succession result in continuous stands of annual broom
weed (Gutierrezia dracunculoides). This is an important quail food
plant and provides an ,unlimited food supply during such years (Jack-
son, 1969).
Few studies have been initiated to determine the effect of
extensive brush control programs on quail. Jackson and Green (1964),
working on the Matador Wildlife Management Area in western Texas,
-·~
4
found that there were only minor differences in bobwhite populations
between the aerial sprayed and untreated areas on similar acreages.
Complete kill of mesquite seldom occurs and regrowth can provide
better quail cover than the original stand.
Burning reduced overstory vegetation on the Matador Manage
ment Area permitting increased understory plant growth (Hart and
Veteto, 1969). Forbs, legumes, and small woody plants were particu
larly benefitted; all of these yield good food and cover for quaiL Quail
were most dense in such areas of controL
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Study Area
This study was conducted 20 miles south of Colorado City,
Texas, on the Rende rbrook-Spade Ranch.
The ranch is in an area transitional between the humid climate
of central Texas and the semi-arid climate to the west; average annual
precipitation is 18 inches. Less than 13 inches of rainfall occurs one
year in ten, but more than 29 inches occurs one year in ten (Stoner,
et al., 1969). Elevation ranges from 1, 900 to 2, 400 feet.
Seven habitat types on the ranch were recognized. They are
listed below along with descriptions taken from Stoner, et al. ( 1969).
1) BOTTOMLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs in narrow
draws and along river bottoms; soils are nearly level, deep,
and fertile. Such areas receive runoff from adjoining range
sites and are considered one of the better habitat types on
the ranch. Such areas may provide the only forage on the
range in dry periods.
2) CHAINED BOTTOMLAND HABITAT:
5
This habitat 1s identical •
6
to the Bottomland Range Habitat except for a reduction in
canopy cover as a result of brush control. It was useful
for study purposes because of the tr~atment.
3) DEEP HARDLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs on a
smooth, nearly level and gently sloping plain where soils
are moderately fine textured and of 20 inches depth. They
have a high capacity to hold water and plant nutrients, but
are only moderately permeable to water and roots.
4) ROUGH BROKEN HABITAT: This habitat consists of steep
escarpments and severely eroded areas, or scalds below
the escarpments. It is composed of rough breaks and a
large part of it is almost inaccessible to livestock. The
plant cover is sparse and highly variable because of dif
ferences in soil materials, slope-exposure, and degree
of geologic erosion.
5) SANDYLAND HABITAT: This habitat occurs on sandy up
lands throughout the ranch where soils are deep, nearly
level or gently sloping, and coarse-textured. Soils in
this type are moderately to readily permeable to water.
Root penetration is deep, but soils have little capacity to
hold water and plant nutrients.
6) VERY SHALLOW SOIL HABITAT: This habitat occupies
smooth hills within the Rolling Plains. These gentle
7
slopes are remnants of High Plains outwash material with
shallow soils and many pebbles and rocks on the surface
throughout the profile. These soils have reduced mois
ture holding capacity, but the moisture available is used
effectively by growing plants.
7) DEEP SAND SOIL HABITAT: This habitat occurs mainly
adjacent to the Colorado River. It consists of large dunes.
The deep soils are level to gently sloping, coarse-textured,
and moderately permeable to readily permeable to roots
and water. Such soils have a low capacity for holding water
and plant nutrients, and are highly susceptable to blowing
in unprotected areas. The major canopy cover is sand
shinnery oak.
Vegetation varies with soil type, ranging from catclaw (Acacia
greggi), tolerant of arid conditions, to hackberry (Celtis reticulata) and
other plants that grow in moist bottomlands (Stoner, et al., 1969).
Extensive brush control programs have been undertaken on
the Renderbrook-Spade Ranch. This has provided an excellent oppor
tunity to study some of their effects on quail habitat. The two main
methods of brush control were aerial application of herbicides and
chaining.
8
Experimental Approach
Two 30-acre plots were established in each of the habitat types.
These were censused for quail eight times in the period from May 18
through August 31, 1970, aided by bird dogs. The location of each bird
or covey was recorded alongwith the name of the shrub or grass from
which it was flushed. Care was taken not to recount birds flying back
into another portion of the plot. Records were kept on total number
of birds and brood and covey sizes (see Appendix A).
Four vegetation sample plots, each 40 X 50 feet were established
in each 30-acre quail plot. Vegetation plots were located 75 feet from
a center point in the direction of the four cardinal directions. Five
tapes 50 feet long were placed in each plot along the 40 feet side, and
along each of these tapes total canopy cover was recorded in width of
cover 0 to 18 inches off the ground, 18 inches to 3 feet, and over 3
feet above the soil surface. The amount of opening uncle r the shrub
was also measured. It was recorded as total width of canopy cover
above the opening. Opening heights were classed as: 0 to 1 foot, 1
foot to 2 feet, and over 2 feet.
Two 16 inch square frames were placed along each of these
tapes to determine the percentages of grass cover, forb cover, bare
ground and litter, and the frequency of occurrence of each plant species.
The frequ~-ncy data are listed in Appendix B.
9
Step-wise multiple regressions were used to identify those
habitat characteristics that account for variability 1n quail populations.
The independent variables were: total canopy cover; canopy cover
between 0 to 18 inches high; canopy cover between 18 inches and 3
feet high; canopy cover over 3 feet high; total canopy cover having
a ground to crown height of 0 to l foot, 1 to 2 feet and over 2 feet;
total grass cover; forb cover; bare ground; and litter. The dependent
variables were: number of bobwhite quail and scaled quail during
three periods, i.e., breeding, brooding, and covey formation. The
data from the months of June, July and August, respectively, were
used to classify these three periods. While somewhat arbitrary, the
validity of this classification was borne out by the field data. During
June 186 adults were located, but only four broods with a total of 39
birds. To prevent bias, only the adult population was used for the
June data because if the immature birds were included any plot con-
taining a brood automatically became a preferred plot. During July,
17 broods were located for a total immature population of 293 birds.
Ninety-three adults were counted. The broods were more evenly
distributed and the total populations were used for data analysis.
Many of the juvenile birds were too large to distinguish from adult
birds by August. Individual broods had begun to join, forming coveys
' of more than one family group. All birds encountered were counted
during that period.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Bobwhite Habitat
The largest breeding population of bobwhites was 1 bird/2. 6
acres in a deep sand soil habitat and the smallest populations were
in a very shallow soil habitat, a rough broken habitat, and chained
bottomland habitat, where no quail were observed (Table 1).
TABLE 1
BOBWHITE QUAIL BREEDING POPULATIONS RENDER.BROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Deep Sand 2 Bottomland 2 Sandyland 1 Deep Sand 1 Deep Hardland 2 Chained Bottomland 1 Bottomland 1
Acres Per Bird
2.6 5.0
10. 0 12.9 12. 9 18. 0 22.5
Habitat Type
Sandyland 2 Deep Hardland 1 Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 2 Very Shallow 1 Chained Bottomland 2 Rough Broken 1
Acres Per Bird
22.5 30.0 45.0 45.0
T~e deep hardland habitats were the most preferred by bob-
whites as brood habitat with 1 bird/0. 8 acres and 1 bird/ 1. 2 acres
10
11
(Table 2). The least preferred habitats were the rough broken, deep
sand, and very shallow soil habitats on which no quail were observed.
BOBWHITE QUAIL BROOD POPULATIONS RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Deep Hardland 1 Deep Hardland 2 Bottomland 2 Bottomland 1 Chained Bottomland 2 Sandyland 2 Sandyland 1
Acres Per Bird
0.8 1.2 1.2 4.5 6. 9 7. 5
10.0
Habitat Type
Chained Bottomland 1 Rough Broken 1 Deep Sand 1 Deep Sand 2 Very Shallow 1 Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 2
Acres Per Bird
15.0
The deep hardland habitats and bottomland habitats were the
most preferr-ed by bobwhite coveys (Table 3). The deep hard1and
habitats had populations of 1 bird/0. 8 acre and 1 bird/3. 1 acres.
The bottomland habitats had populations of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acre and 1 bird/
1. 5 acres. The shallow soil habitats were again the least preferred
habitats.
The deep hardland and bottomland habitats were the most im-
portant summer habitats for bobwhite quail. The deep sand areas were
important as breeding habitat but use was negligible as brood and
TABLE 3
BOBWHITE QUAIL COVEY POPULATIONS
RENDER.BR.OOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Deep Hardland 1 Bottomland 2 Bottomland 1 Deep Ha rdland 2
Chained Bottomland 1
Rough Broken 2
Sandyland 1
Acres Per Bird
0.8 o. 8 1. 5 3. 1 6.9 7. 5
10.0
Habitat Type
Deep Sand 1 Deep Sand 2 Sandyland 2 Chained Bottomland
Very Shallow 1 Rough Broken l
Very Shallow 2
2
'
Acres Per Bird
15. 0 18.0
12
covev habitat. The densitv decrease mav reflect a movement out of # # -
this habitat into adjacent habitats following breeding. The sandyland
and chained bottomland habitats were of moderate importance through
the summer. The shallow soil habitats were of little importance as
bobwhite habitat throughout the summer.
In order to explain these variations in bobwhite quail populations,
the vegetation data were placed in a step-wise multiple regression com-
puter program as independent variables, and were tested against the
different quail populations which were the dependent variables. The
interaction between these independent variables accounted for 76o/o of
the variation in the breeding populations, 99o/r. of the variation in brood
populations, and 99o/o of the variation in covey populations (Table 4).
TABLE 4
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R 2
VALUES FOR BOBWHITE QUAIL IN
Independent Variables
THE ORDER OF DELETION
Breeding Populations Grass cover (squared) Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover Grass cover X Litter Forb cover X Litter Canopy cover 0- 18 11 high X Canopy cover 1- 3 1 high
Brood Populations Forb cover X Litter Bare ground X Litter Litter (squared) Grass cover X Forb cover Grass cover X Bare ground
Covey Populations Canopy cover 0-18" high X Forb cover Canopy cover 0-18" high X Bare ground
Grass cover (squared) Canopy cover with a ground to crown height of
1-2' X Forb cover Grass cover X Forb cover
. 7567
. 67 51
.5811
. 4762
. 1624
. 9895 • 9833 • 9685 . 9193 . 7585
. 9851
. 9361
. 9031
. 8583
. 5406
13
These interactions were used in developing the following prediction
equation:
where,
Y 2 =- 171.94284 +. 27408X4 x 5 +. 08910X4
x6
+ . 01256X 5X7
+ . 04187x6
x7
+. 01999X7
x7
Y 3 = -75.74179-. 03297X 1x 5 +. 05879X 1x6
+.18172X3
X -.03361XX + 37811X4X 5 4 4 . 5
Y 1 = Breeding population of bobwhites/90 acres,
Y 2 = Brood population of bobwhite/60 acres,
Y 3 = Covey population of bobwhite/90 acres,
14
X 1 = Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet,
x 2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000
feet,
x 3 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet,
X4 = Percent grass cover,
x 5 = Percent forb cover,
X6 = Percent bare ground,
x 7 = Percent litter.
The most important single interaction for predicting bobwhite
breeding populations was canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and canopy
cover 1 to 3 feet high, but only accounted for 16% of the variation
(Table 4). I
15
The interaction between grass cover and bare ground was the
most important in predicting brood habitat and accounted for 75% of
the variation in brood populations in the sites (Table 4). Normally an
increase in grass cover will improve brood habitat and cause an in
crease in population, if no other factor such as forb cover or litter is
deficient.
Grass cover and forb cover were the most important in pre
dicting covey habitat. The interaction between these 2 variables ac
counted for 54% of the variation among sites (Table 4). An increase in
grass and £orbs should increase the potential for covey habitat, particu
larly if adequate canopy cover is available.
Total canopy cover and the amount of canopy cover with a ground
to crown height of 1 to 2 feet were found to be insignificant and were
deleted by the computer.
The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate
an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor
deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table 5).
Scaled Quail Habitat
The largest breeding populations of scaled quail were found in
a chained bottomland habitat having 1 bird/9. 0 acres and in a rough
broken ha}?itat containing 1 bird/ 11. 3 acres {Table 6). No scaled quail
/ were observed in either of the 'sandyland habitats or the other chained
Sit
e
Very
Sh
all
ow
1
Very
Sh
all
ow
2
Deep
Hard
lan
d
1 D
eep
Hard
1an
d 2
R
ou
gh
Bro
ken
1
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
2
Deep
San
d
1 D
eep
San
d 2
B
ott
om
lan
d
1 B
ott
om
lan
d 2
S
an
dy
lan
d
1 S
an
dy
lan
d 2
C
hain
ed
Bo
tto
m-
lan
d
1 C
hain
ed
Bo
tto
m-
lan
d 2
TA
BL
E 5
AC
TU
AL
AN
D C
OM
PU
TE
D Y
V
AL
UE
S F
OR
. B
OB
WH
ITE
QU
AIL
O
N R
.EN
DE
RB
R.O
OK
-SP
AD
E R
AN
CH
, 1
97
0
Bre
ed
ing
Po
pu
lati
on
B
roo
d P
op
ula
tio
n
Co
vey
P
op
ula
tio
n
Actu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r A
ctu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r A
ctu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r
0 -
. 0
02
8
. 0
02
8
0 .
00
21
-.
00
21
0
. 0
19
0
. 0
19
0
2.0
2
.00
81
-.
00
81
0
. 0
11
1
. 0
11
1
0 .
01
70
-.
01
70
3
.0
2.
99
67
.
00
33
1
17
. 0
11
6.9
98
8
. 0
01
2
11
2.
0 1
12
. 0
10
7
-.0
10
7
7.
0 7
.00
64
-.
00
64
7
6.0
7
5.9
99
6
. 0
00
4
29
.0
29
. 0
49
7
-.0
49
7
0 -
. 0
2 7
1 .
02
71
1.
0 l.
00
01
-.
00
01
0
. 0
17
5
-.0
17
5
2.0
1
. 9
99
0
. 0
01
0
0 .
00
17
-.
00
17
1
2.
0 1
1.9
89
3
. 0
10
7
9.0
8
.98
77
.
01
23
9
.0
9.0
07
6
-.0
07
6
9.0
8
. 9
91
4
. 0
08
6
4.0
4
.00
76
-.
00
76
1
2.0
1
1.
99
22
.
00
78
0
. 0
03
1
-.0
03
1
4.0
4
.00
70
-.
00
70
2
0.0
2
0.0
02
0
-. 0
02
0
59
. 0
59
. 0
24
3
-.0
24
3
18
. 0
18
.00
29
-.
00
29
7
3.0
7
3.0
01
7
-.0
01
7
10
9.
0 1
08
. 9
66
0
. 0
34
0
7.0
7
. 0
35
9
-.0
35
9
0 -
. 0
05
5
. 0
05
5
6.0
5
. 9
69
8
. 0
30
2
35
.0
34
.99
11
.
00
89
0
. 0
18
8
-. 0
18
8
5.0
4
. 9
77
5
. 0
22
5
5.
0 4
.99
96
.
00
04
6
.0
6. 0
02
0
-.0
02
0
13
. 0
13
. 0
03
2
-.0
03
2
0 -
. 0
09
5
. 0
09
5
13
. 0
12
. 9
92
6
-.0
07
4
0 .
00
17
-.
00
17
._.
0'
TABLE 6
SCALED QUAIL BREEDING POPULATIONS RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Chained Bottomland 2 Rough Broken 1 Bottomland 2 Deep Sand 2 Deep Sand 1 Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 2
Acres Per Bird
9.0 11. 3 15.0 18.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
Habitat Type
Deep Hardland 2 Bottomland 1 Deep Hardland 1 Very Shallow 1 Chained Bottomland Sandyland 1 Sandyland 2
1
,
Acres Per Bird
30.0 30.0 45.0 90.0
17
bottomland habitat. The remaining 9 habitats varied from 1 bird/15. 0
acres to 1 bird/90 acres.
Only seven plots were utilized by scaled quail as brood habitat
(Table 7). The major brood populations were found on a rough broken
habitat containing 1 bird/ 4. 1 acres and on a very shallow soil habitat
containing 1 bird/6. 4 acres. The population in five other habitats
varied from 1 bird/30. 0 to 1 bird/90 acres. No quail were observed
on the other seven plots.
No quail were observed on eight of_the plots during covey1ng
(Table 8). Only six habitats on the ranch contained coveyed scaled
quail and of these only the two bottomland habitats were of any major
importan~e, containing 1 bird/2. 5 acres and 1 bird/3. 6 acres.
TABLE 7
SCALED QUAIL BROOD POPULATIONS '
RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Rough Broken 2 Very Shallow 1 Chained Bottomland 2 Deep Sand 2 Deep Sand 1 ·Deep Hardland 1 Very Shallow 2
Acres Per Bird
4. 1 6.4
30.0 30.0 45.0 81. 8 90.0
Habitat Type
Bottomland 1 Bottomland 2 Rough Broken 1 Deep Hard1and 2 Sandyland 1 Chained Bottomland 1 Sandyland 2
TABLE 8
SCALED QUAIL COVEY POPULATIONS, RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
Habitat Type
Bottomland 1 Bottomland 2 Deep Sand 2 Very Shallow 1 Deep Hardland 1 Very Shallow 2 Chained Bottomland 2
Acres Per Bird
2.5 3.6
11. 7 30.0 81. 8 90.0
Habitat Type
Rough Broken 1 Deep Sand 1 Rough Broken 2 Deep Ha rdland 2 Sandyland 1 Sandy1and 2 Chained Bottomland 1
Acres Per ~ir~-.
Acres Per Bird
18
I
19
The population on the remaining four acres varied from 1 bird/ 11. 7
acres to 1 bird/90. 0 acres.
From habitat to habitat, the densities of scaled quail varied
considerably throughout the summer periods. No site maintained
more than a moderate density, such as the Deep Sand 2 habitat.
Density increased in the bottomlands when the birds began coveying.
The same multiple regression program used for bobwhites was
used to explain the variations in scaled quail population. All of the in
dependent variables except canopy cover over 3 feet tall and total canopy
cover with a ground to crown height over 2 feet were shown to be signi
ficant. The interaction among the independent variables (Table 9) ac
counted for 84% of the variation in quail breeding population, 89o/o of
the variation in brood populations and 81 o/o of the variation in covey
population. These interactions were used in developing the following
prediction equation for scaled quail:
where,
yl = 1.96885 + .00651X 1X 4 - .00569X1X 3
. 00106X2x 9 +. 00~37X4X8 +. 00504X6X 7
y 2
= . 24 781 + . 02494X2x 6 + . 00 134X9
x9
. 00321X7
x9
- . 00361X4X 5 + . 002 72X7X 7
, y 3 = 16. 49564 + . 02681X2X 4 - . 08003X2x 6
+ . 00657x4 x8
- . 00988X4X7
- . 02948X6X 7
y 1
= Breeding population of scaled quail/90 acres,
TABLE 9
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH CORRESPONDING R2 VALUES FOR SCALED QUAIL IN THE
Independent Variables
Breeding Population Bare ground X Litter
ORDER OF DELETION
Total canopy cover X Grass cover Canopy cover 0- 18" high X total canopy cover with
a ground to crown height 0- 1 1
Canopy cover 0-18" high X total canopy cover with a ground to crown height 1-2 1
Canopy cover 0- 18" high X Grass cover
Brood Population Grass cover X Forb cover Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground Litter (squared} Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height
0- 1 1 X Litter Total canopy cover with a ground to crown height
0-1 1 (squared)
Covey Population Total canopy cover X Grass cover Grass cover X Litter Canopy cover 18 "- 3 1 high X Bare ground Bare ground X Litter Canopy cover 18"-3 1 high X Grass cover
y2
= Brood population of scaled quail/60 acres,
Y 3
= Covey population of scaled quail/90 acres,
R2
Values
. 8420
. 7613
. 6134
. 5096
. 2857
. 8916
. 8742
. 8099
. 7400
. 6232
. 8068
. 7124
. 6452
. 5961
. 4893
20
X 1
= Total feet of canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high/1000 feet,
21
X2 = Total feet of canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high/1000
feet,
x3 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
1 to 2 feet/ 1000 feet ,
x4 - Percent grass cover, -
Xs - Percent forb cover, -
x6 - Percent bare ground, -
X? = Percent litter,
X8 = Total canopy cover/ 1000 feet,
x9 = Total feet of intercept with a ground to crown height of
0 to 1 feet/ 1000 feet. (;
The interaction between canopy cover 0 to 18 inches high and
grass cover was the most important in accounting for variations in
breeding populations, but it only accounted for 28. 6% of the variation
(Table 9). An increase in both of these factors will normally improve
breeding habitat.
The square of the value for canopy cover with a ground to crown
height 0 to 1 foot accounted for 62% of the variation in brood habitat
(Table 9). An increase in this type of cover in a habitat should increase
brood population.
The most important interaction for predicting covey populations
was canopy cover 18 inches to 3 feet high and grass cover. It accounted
for 49o/o of the variation in covey populations.
22
The prediction equations and field data were used to calculate
an expected population for each of the 14 census plots. With only minor
deviations, the calculated and actual populations were similar (Table
10).
Brush Control
The best quail populations on the ranch were in the deep hard-
land and bottomland habitats. These are also the habitats in which most
of the brush control has been done.
Bottomland Habitats
The first plot in an uncontrolled bottomland habitat (Fig. 1)
had a bobwhite breeding population of 1 bird/22. 5 acres, a brood popu-
lation of 1 bird/4. 5 acres, and a covey population of 1 bird/1. 5 acres.
~ It had a scaled quail covey population of 1 bird/2. 5 acres but was of
low importance as breeding and brood habitat (Table 11).
Another bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed in June, 1970.
The population for that month was 1 bobwhite quail/ 8. 2 acres and 1
scaled quail/3. 5 acres. Spraying occurred during the June census
period and some reaction to the herbicide treatment was evident that
was not included in Table 11. Prior to spraying, the plot contained
1 scaled quail/2. 3 acres and 1 bobwhite/3. 3 acres. Immediately fol-
lowing the herbicide application the population of both species declined.
At the end of June no bobwhites were found in this area and the scaled
Sit
e
Very
Sh
all
ow
1
Very
Sh
all
ow
2
Deep
Hard
lan
d 1
Deep
Hard
lan
d 2
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
1
Ro
uth
Bro
ken
2
Deep
San
d
1
Deep
San
d 2
Bo
tto
mla
nd
1
Bo
tto
mla
nd
2
San
dy
lan
d
1
San
dy
lan
d 2
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
m-
lan
d
1
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
m-
lan
d 2
•
TA
BL
E
10
AC
TU
AL
AN
D C
AL
CU
LA
TE
D Y
VA
LU
ES
FO
R S
CA
LE
D Q
UA
IL
ON
RE
ND
ER
.BR
.OO
K-S
PA
DE
RA
NC
H,
19
70
Bre
ed
ing
Po
pu
lati
on
B
roo
d P
op
ula
tio
n
Co
vey
Po
pu
lati
on
Actu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r A
ctu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r A
ctu
al
Co
mp
. E
rro
r
1.0
1.
02
32
-. 0
2 3
2
14
.0
13
.96
33
.
03
67
3.
0
2.9
90
2
. 0
09
8
4.
0 4
.00
85
-.
00
85
1
.0
1. 0
11
3 -
. 0
11
3
1.0
.
99
37
.
00
63
2.
0 2
.01
17
-.
01
17
1
1.
0 1
1.
00
67
-.
00
67
1
1.
0 1
1.0
04
1
-.0
04
1
3.
0 2
. 9
85
2
. 0
14
8
0 -
.00
14
.0
01
4
0 -
. 0
03
2
. 0
03
2
8.0
8
. 0
04
4
-.0
04
4
0 -
. 0
23
6
. 0
23
6
0 0
0
4.0
3
.98
98
.
01
02
2
2.0
2
2.
00
27
-.
00
27
0
-.
00
08
.
00
08
0 .
01
72
-.
01
72
0
. 0
00
8 -
. 0
00
8
0 .
00
67
-.
00
67
0 .
03
21
.
03
21
0
-.0
05
1.0
05
1
0 -
. 0
04
0
. 0
04
0
3.0
3
.01
94
-.
01
94
0
-.
0 0
11
. 0
0 1
1 3
6.0
3
6.0
05
8
-.0
05
8
6.0
5
. 9
78
9
. 0
21
1
0 .
0 16
3 -
. 0
16 3
2
5.0
2
4.
99
02
.
00
98
4.0
3
.96
94
.
03
06
2
.0
2.
02
60
-. 0
26
0
0 .
00
12
-.
00
12
5.0
5
.01
21
-.
01
21
3
.. 0
3.0
10
1-.
01
01
8
.0
8.0
01
3
-.0
01
3
0 .
00
33
-.
00
33
0
. 0
03
2 -
. 0
03
2
0 .
01
66
-.
01
66
10
.0
10
.01
06
-.
01
06
3
.0
2.
99£?
~
. 0
0 3
9
0 ..
•
00
28
'
.-..
0.02
8
N
'-.,.)
~
d
Fig
. 1.
B
ott
om
lan
d h
ab
itats
co
ntr
oll
ed
an
d u
nco
ntr
oll
ed
: a)
U
nco
ntr
oll
ed
bo
tto
mla
nd
hab
itat,
b)
Bo
tto
mla
nd
hab
itat
sp
ray
ed
in
Ju
ne,
19
70
, c)
:R
ott
om
lan
d h
ab
itat
sp
ray
ed
in
1
96
8,
d)
Ch
ain
ed
bo
tto
mla
nd
hab
itat.
N
~
4
25
TABLE 11
SCALED AND BOBWHITE QUAIL POPULATIONS ON BOTTOMLANDS AND DEEP HARDLANDS WITH BRUSH CONTROL AND A
BOTTOMLAND WITHOUT BRUSH CONTROL, RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 1970
. ' . . . ' ••• '• .. I o. o o • I, '•• Oo • t I o I. '"- .. • '• ' " •o
Acres/Bird Habitats Bobwhite Scaled
..... Breec:ling Brood Covey.· . Breedii).g Brood Covey
Uncontrolled 22.5 4.5 1.5 30.0 0 2. 5 Bottomland
1970 Sprayed 8.2 6.0 9.0 3. 5 12.0 2. 1 Bottomland
1968 Sprayed 5.0 1.2 0.8 15.0 0 3. 6
Bottomland
1970 Chained 0 6.9 0 9.0 30. 0 0
Bottomland
1968 Chained 18.0 15.0 6. 9 0 0 0
Bottomland
1970 Sprayed 30.0 0. 8 0.8 45.0 81. 8 81. 8
Deep Hardland
1968 Sprayed 12. 9 1.2 3. 1 30.0 0 0
Deep Hardland
quail population dropped to 1 bird/ 15 acres. Apparently, something
other than canopy removal forced the birds from this area since de-
foliation does not occur immediately following spraying. Bird popu-
lations recovere-d; during July there were 1 scaled quail/ 12. 0 acres
26
and 1 bobwhite/6. 0 acres (Table 11). Covey population density was
1 scaled quail/2. 1 acres (greatest density of scaled quail sampled)
and 1 bobwhite/9. 0 acres (lower than the other bottomland habitats).
A bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) sprayed in 1968 had a grass
cover of 45. 2o/o (Appendix D) and this combined with a distribution of
. ·-
woody species, mostly lotebush (Condalia obtusifolia) (Appendix B),
created the best summer habitat for bobwhites (Table 11). The scaled
quail covey population was 1 bird/3. 6 acres. It was of less impor-
tance as breeding and brood habitat for scaled quail.
The data from the plots on which brush had been controlled by
chaining indicated that this practice was probably detrimental to both
species (Table 11). One chained bottomland habitat (Fig. 1) was sprayed
in 1965 and then chained in 1968. This habitat was utilized by bob-
whites only during brood raising and by scaled quail during breeding
and brood raising. It was not occupied by coveys of either species
(Table 11). The existing canopy cover in this area was 7. 8%, com-
posed mainly of mesquite regrowth under three feet high. The grass
cover was low at 11. 5% (Appendix D).
The second habitat that was sprayed in 1965 and chained in
1968 was not utilized by scaled quail at any time. However, this site
maintained a moderate bobwhite population throughout the summer
(Table 11). The canopy cover in this area was only 0. 9% but it had a
grass cover of 50o/o (Appendix D). •
27
Deep Ha rdland Habitats
The two deep hardland habitats (Fig. 2) had been sprayed in
1968 and in June, 1970. The 1970 sprayed area was highly preferred
by bobwhites for the brooding and coveying periods but was of minor
importance for scaled quail all summer. No quail of either species
were observed on this plot for two weeks following the herbicide ap
plication in June. Then populations increased, resulting in the bob
white brood and covey population of 1 bird/ 0. 8 acres while during
breeding there were only 1 bird/30. 0 acres.
The second deep hardland habitat (Fig. 2), sprayed in 1968,
was of little importance as s ca1ed quail habitat. It contained 1 bob
white/ 12. 9 acres during the breeding period and maintained high
populations through the brood and covey periods.
.~---------------------~
' '
Fig. 2. Deep hardland habitats: a) Habitat prior to aerial spraying in June, 1970, b) Habitat aerial sprayed in 1968.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Habitat
Scaled quail and bobwhite quail have evident differences in
preference for breeding and brood habitat. Two of the larger breeding
populations of scaled quail were found in a chained bottomland habitat
and a rough broken habitat on which no breeding bobwhites were ob
served. A similar rough broken habitat and a very shallow soil habi
tat were the most preferred by scaled quail broods, but were not used
by bobwhites.
Both species used the bottomlands as covey habitat, but the deep
hardland habitats which were highly preferred by bobwhites were of
less importance to scaled quail. The diffe renee s in prefe renee can be
partially explained by the prediction equations for the two species.
When using the prediction equation for bobwhites care must be
taken not to de- emphasize the importance of brush in their habitat.
The equation for breeding may lead to the conclusion that complete
removal of brush will improve bobwhite quail breeding habitat and
this is not true. The deep sand soil habitat which contained the highest
29
30
breeding population of bobwhite quail had a moderate distribution of
all types of cover (see Appendix D). What the equation does indicate
is that a reduction 1n canopy cover in a brushy area, coupled with a
resulting increase in grass or forb cover should increase the breed
ing potential for quail in that habitat.
The equations show reduction in canopy cover results in a decrease
in covey preference for that habitat unless there was an immediate tn
crease in grass and forb cover. It appeared that bobwhite quail do
require canopy cover, but a reduction in canopy cover can be com
pensated for by an increase in ground cover, either of grass, £orbs
or litter. The ground to crown height of existing canopy cover ap
peared more important in covey habitat than any other type of canopy
cover. Canopy cover having a ground to crown height of 1 to 2 feet
was most preferred by bobwhites. This may explain the preference
for low growing shrubs, such as lotebush, littleleaf sumac (Rhus
microphylla), and catclaw (Acacia sp. ). Quail flushed from cover
were associated with these three species 90% of the time. It ap
peared that these shrubs should occur in large clumps. They should
be large enough to accomodate a covey of 20 to 30 quail. The clump
size the quail seemed to prefer ranged from 5 to 15 feet in diameter.
Some type of canopy cover, either by itself or interacting with
the amount of grass cover, was a part of the most imporant variable
in every regression equation for scaled quail. It would appear that
31
this variable exerts a greater influence on scaled quail than on bobwhites
where only during breeding canopy cover 0-18 inches high X canopy
cover 1-3 feet high was the most important interaction. The percent
age of bare ground was part of an interaction during all three of the
summer periods for scaled quail. It was never included in the most
important interaction, however. In the field, there seemed to be a
closer relationship than was apparent in the analyses. Two of the
three most preferred habitats, sites Rough Broken 2 (Table 7) and
Bottomland 1 (Table 8) had low percentages of grass cover. The other
preferred habitat, site Bottomland 2 (Table 8), had a grass cover of
45o/o. However, most scaled quail observed in this area was within
100 feet of a dry creek bed that extended the length of the study plot.
When escaping, they usually ran or flew into the dry stream bed.
The regression equations for scaled quail contain a bias that I
suspect occurred when these birds were censused. Their method of
escape did not lend well to censusing with bird dogs. When located by
the pointer dogs, the birds would not remain in place and were observed
in many cases running out of the plot. The censused population may be
lower than the actual population.
Brush Control
Bottomland Habitats
The exact effect of herbicide spraying on bottomland sites seems
determined by the type of canopy that remains afterward and the amount
32
of ground cover existing after herbicide application. The high covey
population of scaled quail in the 1970 sprayed bottomland habitat after
herbicide application indicated that quail may be unaffected by this
type of brush control. The reason appears to be the shrubby cover that
remains after herbicide treatment. Lotebush, littleleaf sumac, catclaw,
and other low growing shrubs may not be affected by the herbicides.
In bottomlands these shrubs, together with the dead stems or resprouts
of mesquite that the sprayed area may still contain, provide the cover .
necessary for scaled quail.
The bobwhite population decreased on the 1970 sprayed bottom-
land habitat indicating that the removal of brush was detrimental to
bobwhite quail. Unless sufficient ground cover exists on a sprayed area
a decline in population could be expected. Normally bottomland habi
tats without brush control have a low percent grass cover due to shad
ing and competition with brush species. This is the main purpose for
removing the brush. If understory improvement follows brush control,
the long term effects of spraying on these bottomland habitats would
appear beneficial.
The bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968 and having two years to
recover maintained the most dense bobwhite population throughout
the summer. Increased ground cover apparently compensated for
the reduction in canopy cover. On sites such as this, as grass cover
increases following herbicide treatment, the potential for quail
•
33
also increases. The management practices and climatic factors that
affect grass cover will determine the length of time it takes to make
one of these habitats adequate for a good bobwhite population. Judging
from the 1968 sprayed bottomland, this can happen in one or two years.
Chaining bottomland habitats appears to be detrimental to both
species of quail. The low amount of canopy cover together with the
low percent grass cover in the first sample plot made it poor habitat
for both species. The second plot maintained a moderately dense bob
white population. Apparently the bobwhites were able to tolerate the
reduction in canopy cover because of the existing grass cover, but the
potential for this habitat was limited by the lack of canopy cover which
is required by both bobwhite and scaled quail.
Deep Hardland Habitats
The dense population existing in the deep hardland habitat that was
sprayed in 1970 indicated that spraying on this site was not detrimental
to bobwhite quail. There was a decrease for a short period of two
weeks following application.
The differences in bobwhite populations in the two deep hardland
habitats was probably due mostly to differences in canopy and ground
cover and not from the herbicide itself. Mesquite was the dominant
shrub species on these sites but it is of minor importance as quail
cover (Jackson, 1969). Lotebush was the shrub species most often
34
used for cover on these deep hardland habitats, and since spraying with
present herbicides has little or no effect on lotebush, spraying was not
detrimental to bobwhite quail. For a deep hardland habitat to carry
its maximum quail population, it would appear to need about 45% grass
cover and 4o/o to 6o/o canopy cover, mostly lotebush. I think that one to
three clumps of lotebush, 10 to 15 feet in diameter is sufficient and
this combined with the regrowth of mesquite following spraying could
provide excellent bobwhite quail habitat.
Since these deep hardland habitats were of minor importance as
scaled quail habitat the effect of spraying these habitats could not be
determined.
Management Implications
Chained bottomland habitats were used at times but generally ap-
peared undesirable for both species of quail. Chaining large areas is
not recommended at all and even in small areas it would be desirable
if low growing shrubs such as lotebush and littleleaf sumac could be
left. The plots in these habitats were located with one edge near the
uncontrolled areas and extended outward into the chained areas. Al-
most all quail in these plots were observed near the uncontrolled
areas. Very few quail were ever observed more than half-way into
\ the plot. When flushed the quail of both species always flew out of
the chained areas into adjacent uncontrolled areas. The centers of •
35
the chained areas were rarely used. The need for cover forces these
birds to stay within easy flight of uncontrolled areas. Leaving strips
of brush through the center of these areas and leaving certain species
throughout would increase their potential and possibly produce a com
bined bobwhite and scaled quail population of 1 bird/2. 0 acres or bet
ter. If the area contained only scaled quail a recommended practice for
chained bottomland habitats would be brush piling or addition of some
artificial cover (Snyder, 1967). In areas having a high percent grass
cover, fallow disking of strips (Jackson, 1969) should increase its
potential as scaled quail habitat.
Management becomes highly complicated in areas where more
than one species is involved. When managing for one species you
must be careful and determine its effect on the other species. For
example the bottomland habitat sprayed in 1968, having a bobwhite
population of 1 bird/0. 9 acre and a scaled quail population of 1 bird/3. 6
acres, should not be altered to improve its potential as scaled quail
habitat. The combined covey population in this habitat was 1 bird/
0. 65 acre which is higher than most managers believe possible. Any
attempt to improve this habitat would probably be futile due to competi
tion and other limiting factors exerting their influence.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Vegetation and quail data were collected on fourteen study areas
in seven vegetation types, to determine habitat requirements, and
the effects of brush control on bobwhite and scaled quail. The vege
tation data were entered into a step-wise multiple regression program
as independent variables and the quail populations as dependent vari
ables.
The interaction between these independent variables accounted for
most of the variations in scaled and bobwhite populations during breed
ing, brood raising and coveying.
The effects of brush control will vary with the type of habitat,
the amount of preferred canopy cover existing before and after treat
ment, the amount of grass cover existing before and after treatment,
and the species of quail involved. Spraying in bottomland habitats ap
pears to be immediately detrimental to bobwhite quail, but has a minor
effect on scaled quail. As grass cover increases on these sites, they
should have the potential to carry a higher bobwhite population than the
untreated habitats.
36
37
Chaining in bottomland habitats was detrimental to both species.
Strips of brush and selected shrubs should be left if these areas are
to maintain a good quail population.
The deep hardland habitats were of minor importance to scaled
quail, but highly preferred by bobwhite. Because of the heavy grass
cover normally on these areas, spraying had little effect on either
species unless all brush was removed.
In regard to herbicide spraying, I agree with Jackson (1969) who
stated that brush control as currently practiced may be resulting in
better quail habitat generally by encouraging sprouting of mesquite
which results in low cover better suited to quail than tall mesquite
trees.
LITERATURE CITED
Ever_ette, E. 1952. Introducing the bobwhite quail. Texas Game and Fish 10(3):20-22.
Gould, F. 1962. Texasplants. Texas A & M Univ. MP-585, 121 p.
Hart, R. , and G. Veteto. 1969. Oak woodland wildlife management survey. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-74-R-13, 7 p.
Jackson, A. S. 1969. Quail management handbook. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Bull. 48, 77 p.
Jackson, A. S., and H. Green. 1964. Dynamics of bobwhite quail on the West Texas Rolling Plains. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dep. Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-88-R.-3, 8 p.
Rechenthin, C. A. 1964. Grassland restoration--the problem. U.S.D.A. andS.C.S. JointPubl. No. 4-19114:1-10.
Schemnitz, S. D. 1961. Ecology of the scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Wildl. Monogr. No. 8, 47 p.
Schemnitz, S. D. 1964. Comparative ecology of bobwhite and scaled quail in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Amer. Midland Natur. 77f2): 429-433.
Snyder, W. D. 1967. Experimental habitat improvement for scaled quail. Colorado Dep. of Game, Fish and Parks Tech. Publ. No.
19, 65 p.
Stoner, H. R., T. J. Holder, D. L. McCiennen and K. M. Templeton. 1969. Soil survey of Mitchell County Texas. U.S. D. A., S.C. S. and Texas A & M Univ., p. 30-45.
38
•
r
39
Teer, J. T. and N. K. Forrest. 1968. Bionomic and ethical implica
tions of commercial game harvest programs. Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
and Natur. Resources Con£. 33:192-204.
Wallmo, C. 0. 1957. Ecology of the scaled quail in Wes.t Texas. M.S.
Thesis. Texas A & M Univ., College Station, 134 p.
Wing, L. W. 1941. . Size of bird flocks in winter. Auk. 58:188-194.
APPENDIX
A. Data on breeding, nesting, brood and covey s1ze.
B. Percent occurrence and composition of plant species occurring
on the study area.
C. Data from bobwhite and scaled quail nests on the Renderbrook
Spade Ranch, 1970.
D. Line intercept and ground cover data.
E. List of plant species occurring on the study areas.
40 •
41
APPENDIX A: DATA ON BREEDING, NESTING, BROODAND COVEY SIZE
Breeding
The main features of reproduction appear to be similar for
both species, differing slightly. Pairing was observed for both species
in late April, but complete covey breakup was not terminated until
late May. The first brood of bobwhite quail was observed on June 7,
1969 and on June 9, 1970. The first brood of scaled quail was ob-
served on June 6, 1969 and on June 8, 1970 indicating that breeding
for both species began in early May during both years. Juvenile
birds one to two days old were observed for both species during
the last ¥leek in August. The nesting season appears to be prolonged
for both species from early May to late August.
Nesting
Ten bobwhite quail nest.~ were located in 1970. Predation had
occurred on six prior to their discovery, leaving four that were in-
cubated. Six of these nests were located in clumps of tobossa grass
and four in clumps of three-awn grass (Aristida ~·). The clutch
sizes of the four incubated nests were 12, 13, 14 and 15 with an aver-
age of 13. 5. Only two nests were successful. In the nest with 13
eggs 11 hatched. All 15 hatched from the last nest.
In contrast to the grass nesting habit of the bobwhite only one
of four scaled quail nests was located in strictly grass cover
-
APPENDIX A (Continued)
(see Appendix C). The remaining three were in vegetation afford
ing more cover. The clutch sizes of these nests were 11, 13, 14,
and 14. The nests with 11 and 14 eggs were successful and in both
cases all eggs hatched. The average clutch size was 13. 0 as com-
pared to the 13. 5 for bobwhites.
A mixed nest was located in a clump of grass at the base
of a dead mesquite. It contained 10 scaled quail eggs and three
bobwhite eggs and was being incubated by a sc~.led quail. The nest
was destroyed a week after its discovery by a predator.
Predation
Nest depredation was quite evident and it is my opinion that
the skunk was the major predator. A strong skunk odor was evi-
dent at three of the destroyed nests and a skunk was actually ob-
served destroying one nest. The nests on almost all occasions
were completely destroyed and the crushed shells spread several
feet around the nest. Further research, however, is necessary to
determine the extent of this predation.
Brood and Covey Size
'42
Quail brood mortality appears to be highest just after hatch
ing before the young are able to fly. The average brood size for bob
whites calculated from 18 observations of non-flying juveniles, was •
APPENDIX A (Continued)
12. 4; whereas for scaled quail it was 13. 0, just slightly under the
average clutch size for both species. The average brood size for
bobwhites that were able to fly, from 26 observations, was 10. 2;
and for scaled quail, from 24 observations, was 10. 6.
Covey formation is a slow continuous process, starting in
43
June and probably continuing into October. The first covey of
scaled quail was observed on June 25, 1970. It was composed of
four adults and 22 juveniles. The first covey of bobwhites, com
posed of three adults and 20 young, was observed on July 7, 1970.
The average covey size in late August was 25. 9 for bobwhites based
on 31 observations and 24. 5 for scaled quail, based on 37 observa-
tions. This is slightly uncle r the 31. 2 birds for covey reported by
Schemnitz (1961) for scaled quail, and much higher than 12.03 re
ported by Wing (1941) for bobwhites.
AP
PE
ND
IX B
: P
ER
CE
NT
OC
CU
RR
EN
CE
AN
D C
OM
PO
SIT
ION
OF
PL
AN
T S
PE
CIE
S O
CC
UR
RIN
G O
N
TH
E S
TU
DY
AR
EA
. W
OO
DY
PL
AN
TS
GIV
EN
IN
PE
RC
EN
T C
AN
OP
Y C
OV
ER
.
(R.E
ND
ER
.BR
OO
K-S
PA
DE
RA
NC
H,
19
70
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Gra
sses
An
dro
:eo
go
n b
a.
Ari
sti
da l
o.
-
vs
1
10
. 0
vs
2 D
H
DH
R
.B
1 2
1
2.5
7
.5
R.B
D
S
2 1 7.
5
2.5
DS
2 2.5
BL
1
BL
S
L
2 1
SL
2
CB
1
CB
2 "
Aristida~
45
.0
25
.0
5.0
1
2.5
1
5.0
1
7.5
2
.5
2.5
2
. 5
52
. 5
27
. 5
2.5
A r
isti
da w
r.
22
.5
52
.5
2.5
4
0.0
2
5.0
2
5.0
3
0.0
2
.5
2.5
2
.5
22
.5
Bo
ute
1o
ua
cu
. 2
.5
5.0
2
.5
45
.0
2.5
B
ou
telo
ua t
r.
15
.0
12
.5
12
.5
7.5
7
.5
15
.0
-B
rom
us
wi.
1
2.5
3
7.5
8
5.0
5
.0
Bu
ch
loe d
a.
10
.0
35
.5
50
.0
47
.5
7.5
2
0.0
1
2.
5 2
0.0
C
en
ch
rus
pa.
47
.5
45
.0
7-.
5
Ch
lori
s cu
. 7
.5
15
.0
2.5
3
7.5
2
5.0
1
5.0
Era
gro
sti
s s
e.
30
.0
7.5
Festu
ca o
c.
27
.5
20
.0
97
.5
12
. 5
35
.0
5.0
7
2.5
7
0.0
2
.5
-F
est
uca ~·
10
.0
Hil
ari
a m
u.
2.5
3
7.0
4
0.0
7
. 3
12
. 7
62
.5
4.8
--
Ho
rdeu
rn ~·
7.5
3
2.5
8
0.0
1
5.0
Leptoloma~
2.5
2
.5
87
.5
92
.5
67
.5
75
.0
7.5
Pan
icu
m h
a.
5.0
-
Pan
icu
m r
a.
7.5
2
5.0
2
.5
-P
asp
alu
m d
i.
2.5
Ph
ala
r is
ar.
4
5.0
2
.5
~ ~
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Ph
1eu
m ~
Sp
oro
bo
lus
cr.
S
tip
a 1~
Sti
pa
ne.
T
rid
en
s al
. -
T r
iden
s .E
!_.
Tri
setu
m i
n.
-
Fo
rbs
Ac1
eisa
nth
es ..
!P·
Allium~·
Am
bly
o1
epis
~·
Ambrosia~
Ap
han
ost
eph
us
.!:!:·
A
rtem
isia
lu
. -
Cassia~.
Cen
tau
rea a
m.
-C
irsi
um
te.
-
Ch
am
aesa
rach
a c
o.
-C
lem
ati
s d
r.
-C
occ
ulu
s ca
. -
Co
mm
eli
na ~·
~
vs
1
12.
5
2.5
8
0.0
5.0
7
.5
20
.0
2.5
vs
2
45
.0
17
.5
85
.0
2.5
5
0.0
DH
D
H
RB
R
B
DS
1 2
1 2
1
5.0
2
.5
20
.0
20
.0
15
.0
30
.0
2.5
17
.5
15
.0
15
.0
15
.0
7. 5
2.5
5
.0
10
.0
25
.0
7. 5
70
.0
5.0
2
.5
5.0
7
.5
45
.0
DS 2
45
. 0
67
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
15
.0
7.5
1
5.0
2
7.5
7
.5
25
.0
17
.5
12
.5
2.5
7.5
7.5
3
5.0
9
5.0
12
. 5
2.5
2
.5
10
.0
7.5
1
7.5
5
.0
SL
C
B
2 1
7. 5
2
.5
2.5
30
.0
95
.0
5.0
2.5
CB
2
7. 5
1
5.0
7. 5
.~
U"\
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Cro
ton
.&!.:
C r
oto
n .E
_£.
Cro
ton
te.
-C
rucif
era
e ~
Cy
peru
s u
n.
Da1
ea n
a.
-Daucus~
Dit
hy
raea w
i.
Dy
s so
dia
ac.
Dy
sso
dia
~·
Eri
og
on
um
an
.
Ero
diu
m t
e.
-E
up
ho
rbia
al.
Eu
ph
orb
ia 1
a.
Euphorbia~·
Ev
ax
mu
. -
Ev
o1
vu
lus
nu
. -
Gaillardia~·
Gau
ra s
u.
--
Go
s sp
yia
nth
us
1a.
Gu
tierr
ezia
dr.
-
Gu
tierr
ezia
sa. -
vs
1
47
.5
5.0
20
.0
22
.5
87
.5
2.5
1
7.5
2
.5
2.0
10
. 0
25
.0
10
.0 vs
2
40
.0
52
. 5
30
.0
DH
D
H
RB
R
B
DS
1 2
1 2
1
75
.0
27
.5
2.5
1
5.0
2.5
2
.5
5.0
1
7.5
5
.0
2.5
1
7.5
7
.5
40
.0
2.5
2.5
2
.5
80
. 0
42
. 5
90
.0
30
.0
40
.0
55
.0
40
.0
2.5
2
.5
2.5
2
.5
7.5
2
.5
42
.5
30
.0
57
.5
40
.0
7.
5 1
0.0
7
.5
2.5
3
2.
5 1
2.5
5.0
1
7.5
2
.5
15
.0
47
.5
5.0
1
0.0
20
.0
55
.0
40
.0
45
.0
30
.0
2.5
1
7.5
DS 2
57
.5
20
.0
12
. 5
22
.5
25
.0
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
22
.5
45
.0
15
.0
2.5
1
0.0
1
7.5
4
5.0
15
.0
62
.5
10
.0
12
.5
2.5
42
.5
35
.0
2.5
42
.5
77
.5
15
.0
70
.0
52
.5
SL
2
37
.5
5.0
32
.5
27
.5
35
.0
70
.0
CB
1
20
.0
25
.0
20
.0
37
.5
55
.0
2.5
45
.0
40
.0
CB
2
10
.0
2.5
2.5
70
.0
5.0
27
.5
15
.0
57
.5 ~
0'
•
.......
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Hed
eo
ma d
r.
-H
ed
yo
tis ~
Hed
yo
tis
hu
. H
off
man
seg
gia
de.
Hy
men
op
ap
pu
s fl
. K
ram
eri
a 1
a.
-L
app
u1
a re
. L
ap
pu
la t
e.
Lep
idiu
m o
b.
Lesq
uere
lla a
r.
Lin
um
le.
-L
inu
m r
i.
-L
ith
os1
2er
n1
um
in
. L
yg
od
esm
ia r
a.
Mela
mp
od
ium
1~
Mo
nard
a ~
Mo
nard
a ~
No
rth
osc
ord
um
bi.
-
Oen
oth
era
~·
Op
un
tia l
e.
Pa1
afo
xia
S..£
.:. PhysaF?~ 1
o.
..
vs
1 7.6
22
.5
2.5
2.5
5
7.5
5
.0
67
.5
7.5
2
.5
5.0
vs
2
10
.0
7.5
2.5
25
.0
50
.0
72
.5
42
.5
7. 5
DH
D
H
RB
R
.B
DS
1
2 1
2 1
20
.0
5.0
5
.0
45
.0
2.5
2
.5
5.0
1
0.0
2
5.0
12
. 5
27
.5
7.5
7
.5
12
.5
52
.5
55
.0
45
.0
27
.5
10
.0
57
.5
37
.5
5.0
2
.5
60
.0
42
.5
22
.5
37
.5
\
2.5
2
0.0
5
2.5
70
.0
2.5
5
.0
2.5
DS
2 7.
5 1
7.5
12
.5
7.5
10
.0
80
.0
7.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1 7.5
2
.5
2.5
7.5
7
.5
7.
5 2
0.0
4
7.5
4
7.5
9
7.5
5
0.0
5
5.0
5
.0
10
.0
52
.5
45
.0
15
. 0
2.5
15
.0
2.5
2.5
20
.0
SL
2 7.5
2.5
1
2.
5
97
.9
17
.5
27
.5
2.5
CB
1
32
.5
10
.0
35
.0
2.5
1
7.5
7.5
CB
2
20
.0
15
.0
5.0
77
.5
47
.5
22
.5
15
.0
2.5
1
2.5
2.5
~
-J
'
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Plantago~
Pla
nta
go
rh
.
Po
lyg
ala
tw
.
Salv
ia r
e.
-S
cu
tell
ari
a w
r.
-S
ola
nu
m e
l.
-S
ph
ae r
alc
ea ~·
Th
ele
sp
erm
a ~
Tra
des c
an
tia ~·
Teu
cri
um
la.
-V
erb
en
a b
i.
-X
an
this
ima t
e.
--
Xan
thiu
m i
t.
-Y
ucca _
g!.
Zin
nia
[!_
.
Wo
od
ies
Acacia
.&!·
A
rtem
isia
fi.
-
Atr
iple
x ~
Berb
eri
s t
r.
-
vs
1
40
.0
12
.5
2.5
7.
5
2.5
12
. 5
10
.0
.4
. 1 . 9 vs
2
45
.0
5.0
32
.5
5.0
7. 5
10
.0
. 6 D
H
DH
R
.B
R.B
D
S 1
2 1
2 1
22
.5
57
.5
22
.5
7.5
3
0.0
72
.5
45
.0
35
.0
47
.5
2.5
2
.5
12
.5
7.5
2
7.5
2.
5
5.0
1
5.0
5
.0
27
.5
27
.5
15
.0
7.5
1
0.0
1
2.5
2
7.5
5.0
2
.5
7.5
7
.5
15
.0
2.5
2
2.5
.9
' 1
.8
DS
2
65
.0
2.5
12
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
15
.0
97
.5
2.5
25
.0
65
.0
25
.0
5.0
7.
5
7.5
2
.5
12
.5
12
.4
30
.0
10
,0
2.5
1
2.5
7
.5
2.5
7
.5
.7
1.4
1
.5
3. 1
SL
2
92
.5
2.5
22
.5
CB
1 5.0
3
7.5
7.5
30
.0
.4
CB
2
52
.5
32
.5
2.5
1
0.0
3
2.5
42
.5
20
.0
1.8
~
00
•
AP
PE
ND
IX B
(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pla
nt
Sp
ecie
s
Celt
is re
. -
Co
nd
ali
a o
b.
-D
ale
a f
o.
-Ephedra~
Juniperus~
Min
1.o
sa b
i.
-O
pu
nti
a l
e.
Pro
so
pis
ju
.
Qu
erc
us
ha.
-R
hu
s m
i.
-V
i tis
ac.
-Z
an
tho
xy
lum
te.
vs
1 5.0
. 6
.
3 . 5
VS
=
Very
Sh
all
ow
Sit
e
DH
= D
eep
Hard
lan
d S
ite
RB
= R
ou
gh
Bro
ken
Sit
e
DS
= D
eep
San
d S
ite
BL
= B
ott
om
lan
d S
ite
SL
= S
and
y1
and
Sit
e
VS
D
H
2 1
.4
.3
. 5
3.0
.
3 .3
CB
= C
hain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
Sit
e
DH
R
.B
2 1 1
.0
2.4
. 1
12
. 1
R.B
2 1
.5
1.5
1
4.9
.2
.7
DS
1 6
.5
DS
2 7
.5
BL
B
L
SL
1
2 1
2.9
1
.3
2.2
.4
.4
1.9
1
.8
.4
. 3
6.5
2.4
.
5 .2
SL
2 5
. 1
CB
1
. 3
CB
2
.2
3.7
~
.....0
50
APPENDIX C: DATA FROM BOBWHITE AND SCALED QUAIL NESTS ON THE RENDERBROOK-SPADE RANCH, 19.70
Species
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Bobwhite
Scaled
Scaled
Scaled
Scaled
Mixed
Clutch Eggs Size Hatched
6 0
10 0
7 0
8 0
1 7''' ~.- 0
13 -·· ~.- 11
15 , .. ~,, 15
12~~ 0
14 , .. ~.- 0
14~~ 14
13~~ 0
11* 11
13 0
Cover Used
Aristida Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Lotebush and Tobossa Grass
Tobossa Grass
Tasajillo and Tobossa Grass
Phalaris and Tobossa Grass
Three-awn Grass
Tobossa Grass and Prickly Pear
Three-awn and Prickly Pear
Buffalo Grass and Mesquite
I * Denotes nests that were incubated
AP
PE
ND
IX D
: L
INE
IN
TE
R.S
EP
T A
ND
GR
OU
ND
CO
VE
R.
DA
TA
Sit
e
Lin
e I
nte
rcep
t/ 1
00
0 f
eet
Can
op
y
Co
ver
Gro
un
d t
o
0-1
8"
18
"-3
' T
ota
l C
row
n
Heig
ht
Hig
h
Hig
h
Co
ver
0-
1'
1-2
'
Bo
tto
mla
nd
1
15
. 5
44
. 5
13
9.
5 12
3.
7 4
. 2
Bo
tto
mla
nd
2
0 2
5.
1 3
7.
5 3
7.
5 0
Deep
San
d 2
3
.4
6.
8 5
1.
0 3
4.
0 6
.8
Very
Sh
all
ow
1
12
.6
17
. 5
35
.0
32
. 5
2.4
Deep
Hard
lan
d
1 2
2.
3 11
. 1
65
.0
44
.0
50
. 0
Very
Sh
all
ow
2
24
.7
7.2
4
2.
5 3
9.
1 3
.4
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
2
47
. 8
31
. 0
78
. 5
72
. 5
0
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
1
6.2
1
8.7
1
62
.0
0 2
5.0
Deep
San
d
l 2
3.8
1
4.
3 1
09
. 5
61
. 9
19
. 0
Ro
ug
h B
rok
en
2
23
. 7
47
.4
21
3.
5 2
0.2
1
1.
9
Deep
Hard
lan
d 2
0
0.
1 0
. 1
0 0
San
dy
lan
d
1 7
7.
0 0
35
.0
77
.0
0
San
dy
lan
d 2
8
6.
3 6
.2
92
. 5
92
. 0
0
Ch
ain
ed
Bo
tto
mla
nd
1
9. 5
0
9. 5
9.
5
0
Perc
en
t G
rou
nd
Co
ver
Gra
ss
Fo
rbs
(%)
(o/o
)
17
.7
19
.4
45
. 2
14
.9
9. 9
1
6.
5
29
. 5
9.
5 4
8.
0 ,
8.0
21
. 0
10
.0
11
. 5
22
. 7
18
. 8
7.8
15
. 0
10
. 3
15
. 2
11
. 2
30
. 0
12
. 5
18
. 5
10
.0
16
.8
17
.8
50
. 0
9. 0
Bare
(%)
3.
1 5.
1
3. 6
5
. 0
4.
0 4
. 5
6.8
1
0.8
6
.5
6.
8 6
. 8
11
. 5
4.
7 4
.0
Lit
ter
( o/o
)
59
. 8
34
. 8
70
. 0
56
.0
40
. 0
64
. 5
59
. 0
62
. 8'
6
7.
8 6
8.
7 5
0.
8 5
9.
9 6
0.
7 3
7.
0
(,]'1
1-'
•
..
. .
.
52
APPENDIX E: LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE STUDY AREAS. NOMENCLATURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOULD (1962) _
Scientific Name . CPrnt:non Name
Grasses
Andropogon barbinodis Cane bluestem
Aristida longiseta Red three-awn
Aristida purpurea Purple three-awn
Aristida wrightii Wright three-awn
Bouteloua curtipendula Sideoats gramma
Bouteloua trifida Red gramma
Bromus wildenowii Rescue grass
Buchloe dactyloides Buffalo grass
Cenchrus pauciflorus Sandbur
Chloris cucullata Hooded windmill grass
Eragrostis sessilispica Tumble lovegrass
Festuca octoflora Sixweeks fescue
Festuca paradoxa Cluster fescue
Hilaria mutica Tobosagrass
Hordeum pusillum Little barley
Leptoloma cognatum Fall witchgrass
Panicum hallii Halls panicum
•
53
APPENDIX E (Continued)
-Scientific Name C orrnn,on N arpe
·Grasses
Panicum ramisetum Bristle panicum
Paspalum dilatatum Dallisgrass
Phalaria arundinaceae Reed canary grass
Phleum pratense Timothy
Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed
Stipa leucotricha Texas wi. ntergras s
Stipa neomexicana New Mexico feathergrass
Tridens albescens White tridens
Tridens pilosus Hairy tridens
Trisetum interruptum Prairie trisetum
Forbs
Acleisanthes ~ Trumpets
Allium~. Wild onion
Amblyolepis setigera Huisachedaisy
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Aphanostephus ramossissmus Plains dozedaisy
Artemisia ludoviciana Louisiana sagewort
Cassia pumilio Dwarf senna
54
APPENDIX E (Continued)
Scientific Name Conrrnon Name . . . .....
Forbs
Cassia romeriana Twoleaf senna
Centaurea americana Arne rican basketflowe r
Cirsium texanum Southern thistle
Chamaesaracha coronopus Green false- nightshade
Clematis drummondi Texas virgins bower
Cocculus carolinus Carolina snailweed
Commelina ~· Dayflower
Croton dioicus Grassland croton
Croton glandulosus Tropic croton
Croton pottsii Leatherweed croton
Croton texensis Texas croton
Cruciferae ~ Mustard
Cyperus uniflorus Oneflower flatsedge
Dalea nana Dward dalea
Daucus pus ill us Southwestern carrot
Dithyraea wislizeni Spectaclepod
Dyssodia acerosa Prickleleaf dogwood
Dys sodia papposa Mayweed dogwood
APPEND~ E (Continued)
Scientific Name
Forbs
Echinocactus texensis
Eriogonum annum
Erodium texanum
Euphorbia albomarginata
Euphorbia lata
Euphorbia spathulata
Evax multicaulis
Evolvulus nuttallianus
Gaillardia pulchella
Gaura suffulta
Gosspyianthus lanuginosus
Gutie rre zia dracunculoide s
Gutierrezia sarothrae
Hedeoma drummondii
Hedyotis acerosa
Hedyotis humifusa
Hoffmanseggia densiflora
Hymenopappus flavescens
Krameria lanceolata
Con::nn.on N~me
Devils pincushion
Annual wildbuckwhea t
Texas filaree
Whitemargin euphorbia
Hairy euphorbia
Warty euphorbia
Rabbits tobacco
Hairy evolvulus
Indian blanket
Wild honeysuckle
W oll y cottonflowe r
Annual broomweed
Perennial broomweed
Drummond hedeoma
Needleleaf bluets
Mat bluets
Mesquite weed
Yellow wollywhite
Trailing ra tany
55
•
\
APPENDIX E (Continued}
Scientific Name
Forbs
Lappula redowskii
Lappula texana
Lepidium oblongum
Lesquerella argyraea
Linum lewisii
Linum rigidum
Lithospermum incisum
Lygodesmia ramosissima
Melampodium leucanthus
Monarda pectinata
Monarda punctata
Northoscordum bivalve
Oenorthera ~·
Opuntia leptocaulis
Palafoxia ~
Physalis lobata
Plantago purshii
Plantago rhodosperma
C.ommon Na,rne
Flatspine stickweed
Hairy stickweed
Veiny pepperweed
Silvery bladde rpod
Prairie flax
Stiffstem flax
Narrowleaf gromwell
Skeleton plant
Plains blackfoot
Horsemint
Horsemint
False garlic
Buttercup
Tasijillo
Flores tina
Purple ground cherry
Wolly plantain
Redseed plantain
56
APPENDIX E (Continued)
'· Scientific Name
Forbs
Polygala tweedyi
Salvia reflexa
Scutellaria wrightii
Solanum eleagnifolium
Solanum rostratum
Thelesperma megapotamicum
Tradescantia ~·
Teucrium laevigatum
Verbena bipinnatifida
Verbena plicata
Xanthisima texanum
Xanthium italicum
Yucca glauca
Zinnia grandiflora
Woodies
Acacia greggii
Artemisia filifolia
A triplex canes cans
57
Common Name
Rock milkwort
Lanceleaf sage
Penland skullcap
Silverleaf nightshade
Buffalo bur
Colorado greenthread
Spiderwort
Annual germander
Sweet william
Whitevein verbena
Texas sleepydaisy
Cocklebur
Soapweed yucca
Plains zinnia
Catclaw
Sand sagebrush
Fourwing saltbush •
APPENDIX E (Continued)
Scientific Name
Woodies
Berberis trifoliolata
Celtis reticulata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Ce rcis canadensis
Condalia obtus ifolia
Dalea formosa
Ephedra antisyphlitica
Forestiera pubescens
Juglans microcarpa
Juniperus monosperma
Mimosa biuncifera
Prosopis juliflora
Rhus microphylla
Vi tis ace rifolia
Zanthoxylum texanum
.-Common Name
Agarito
Hackberry
Common bottombush
Redbud
Lotebush
Feather dalea
Vine ephedra
Elbow bush
Texas black walnut
One- seeded juniper
Catclaw mimosa
Mesquite
. Littleleaf sumac
Bush grape
Pricklyash
58
